Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: The Man Who Knew The Future Of Pakistan Before Its Creation


Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal message. They are not a racial or regional grouping in whose territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in India are not one community; they are divided among many well-entrenched sects. You can unite them by arousing their anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect. Apart from Wahhabi, Sunni and Shia there are innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints and divines. Small issues like raising hands during the prayer and saying Amen loudly have created disputes that defy solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [fatwas declaring someone as infidel] liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.

But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have become firm in their communalism; they prefer politics to religion and follow their worldly ambitions as commands of religion. History bears testimony to the fact that in every age we ridiculed those who pursued the good with consistency, snuffed out the brilliant examples of sacrifice and tore the flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals; even high ranking Prophets were not spared by these custodians of traditions and customs. — Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in an interview to journalist Shorish Kashmiri for a Lahore based Urdu magazine, Chattan, in April 1946.

This invaluable document has been resurrected and translated by former union minister Arif Mohammad Khan for Covert Magazine. The redoubtable Maulana’s predictions about what will happen to Pakistan, if it got created, have come so uncannily true that they almost read like newspaper headlines.

URL of this Page:



by Shorish Kashmiri, Matbooat Chattan, Lahore

Congress president Maulana Abul Kalam Azad gave the following interview to journalist Shorish Kashmiri for a Lahore based Urdu magazine, Chattan, in April 1946. It was a time when the Cabinet Mission was holding its proceedings in Delhi and Simla. Azad made some startling predictions during the course of the interview, saying that religious conflict would tear apart Pakistan and its eastern half would carve out its own future. He even said that Pakistan’s incompetent rulers might pave the way for military rule. According to Shorish Kashmiri, Azad had earmarked the early hours of the morning for him and the interview was conducted over a period of two weeks. This interview has not been published in any book so far — neither in the Azad centenary volumes nor in any other book comprising his writing or speeches — except for Kashmiri’s own book Abul Kalam Azad, which was printed only once by Matbooat Chattan Lahore, a now-defunct publishing house. Former Union Cabinet Minister Arif Mohammed Khan discovered the book after searching for many years and translated the interview for COVERT

Q: The Hindu Muslim dispute has become so acute that it has foreclosed any possibility of reconciliation. Don’t you think that in this situation the birth of Pakistan has become inevitable?

A: If Pakistan were the solution of Hindu Muslim problem, then I would have extended my support to it. A section of Hindu opinion is now turning in its favour. By conceding NWFP, Sind, Balochistan and half of Punjab on one side and half of Bengal on the other, they think they will get the rest of India — a huge country that would be free from any claims of communal nature. If we use the Muslim League terminology, this new India will be a Hindu state both practically and temperamentally. This will not happen as a result of any conscious decision, but will be a logical consequence of its social realities. How can you expect a society that consists 90% of Hindus, who have lived with their ethos and values since prehistoric times, to grow differently? The factors that laid the foundation of Islam in Indian society and created a powerful following have become victim of the politics of partition. The communal hatred it has generated has completely extinguished all possibilities of spreading and preaching Islam. This communal politics has hurt the religion beyond measure. Muslims have turned away from the Quran. If they had taken their lessons from the Quran and the life of the Holy Prophet and had not forged communal politics in the name of religion then Islam’s growth would not have halted. By the time of the decline of the Mughal rule, the Muslims in India were a little over 22.5 million, that is about 65% of the present numbers. Since then the numbers kept increasing. If the Muslim politicians had not used the offensive language that embittered communal relations, and the other section acting as agents of British interests had not worked to widen the Hindu-Muslim breach, the number of Muslims in India would have grown higher. The political disputes we created in the name of religion have projected Islam as an instrument of political power and not what it is — a value system meant for the transformation of human soul. Under British influence, we turned Islam into a confined system, and following in the footsteps of other communities like Jews, Parsis and Hindus we transformed ourselves into a hereditary community. The Indian Muslims have frozen Islam and its message and divided themselves into many sects. Some sects were clearly born at the instance of colonial power. Consequently, these sects became devoid of all movement and dynamism and lost faith in Islamic values. The hallmark of Muslim existence was striving and now the very term is strange to them. Surely they are Muslims, but they follow their own whims and desires. In fact now they easily submit to political power, not to Islamic values. They prefer the religion of politics not the religion of the Quran. Pakistan is a political standpoint. Regardless of the fact whether it is the right solution to the problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the name of Islam. The question is when and where Islam provided for division of territories to settle populations on the basis of belief and unbelief. Does this find any sanction in the Quran or the traditions of the Holy Prophet? Who among the scholars of Islam has divided the dominion of God on this basis? If we accept this division in principle, how shall we reconcile it with Islam as a universal system? How shall we explain the ever growing Muslim presence in non-Muslim lands including India? Do they realise that if Islam had approved this principle then it would not have permitted its followers to go to the non-Muslim lands and many ancestors of the supporters of Pakistan would not have had even entered the fold of Islam? Division of territories on the basis of religion is a contraption devised by Muslim League. They can pursue it as their political agenda, but it finds no sanction in Islam or Quran. What is the cherished goal of a devout Muslim? Spreading the light of Islam or dividing territories along religious lines to pursue political ambitions? The demand for Pakistan has not benefited Muslims in any manner. How Pakistan can benefit Islam is a moot question and will largely depend on the kind of leadership it gets. The impact of western thought and philosophy has made the crisis more serious. The way the leadership of Muslim League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam will become a rare commodity in Pakistan and Muslims in India. This is a surmise and God alone knows what is in the womb of future. Pakistan, when it comes into existence, will face conflicts of religious nature. As far as I can see, the people who will hold the reins of power will cause serious damage to Islam. Their behaviour may result in the total alienation of the Pakistani youth who may become a part of non-religious movements. Today, in Muslim minority states the Muslim youth are more attached to religion than in Muslim majority states. You will see that despite the increased role of Ulema, the religion will lose its sheen in Pakistan.

Q: But many Ulema are with Quaid-e-Azam [M.A. Jinnah].

A: Many Ulema were with Akbare Azam too; they invented a new religion for him. Do not discuss individuals. Our history is replete with the doings of the Ulema who have brought humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and period. The upholders of truth are exceptions. How many of the Ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim history of the last 1,300 years? There was one Imam Hanbal, one Ibn Taimiyya. In India we remember no Ulema except Shah Waliullah and his family. The courage of Alf Sani is beyond doubt, but those who filled the royal office with complaints against him and got him imprisoned were also Ulema. Where are they now? Does anybody show any respect to them?

Q: Maulana, what is wrong if Pakistan becomes a reality? After all, “Islam” is being used to pursue and protect the unity of the community.

A: You are using the name of Islam for a cause that is not right by Islamic standards. Muslim history bears testimony to many such enormities. In the battle of Jamal [fought between Imam Ali and Hadrat Aisha, widow of the Holy Prophet] Qurans were displayed on lances. Was that right? In Karbala the family members of the Holy Prophet were martyred by those Muslims who claimed companionship of the Prophet. Was that right? Hajjaj was a Muslim general and he subjected the holy mosque at Makka to brutal attack. Was that right? No sacred words can justify or sanctify a false motive.

If Pakistan was right for Muslims then I would have supported it. But I see clearly the dangers inherent in the demand. I do not expect people to follow me, but it is not possible for me to go against the call of my conscience. People generally submit either to coercion or to the lessons of their experience. Muslims will not hear anything against Pakistan unless they experience it. Today they can call white black, but they will not give up Pakistan. The only way it can be stopped now is either for the government not to concede it or for Mr Jinnah himself — if he agrees to some new proposal.

Now as I gather from the attitude of my own colleagues in the working committee, the division of India appears to be certain. But I must warn that the evil consequences of partition will not affect India alone, Pakistan will be equally haunted by them. The partition will be based on the religion of the population and not based on any natural barrier like mountain, desert or river. A line will be drawn; it is difficult to say how durable it would be.

We must remember that an entity conceived in hatred will last only as long as that hatred lasts. This hatred will overwhelm the relations between India and Pakistan. In this situation it will not be possible for India and Pakistan to become friends and live amicably unless some catastrophic event takes place. The politics of partition itself will act as a barrier between the two countries. It will not be possible for Pakistan to accommodate all the Muslims of India, a task beyond her territorial capability. On the other hand, it will not be possible for the Hindus to stay especially in West Pakistan. They will be thrown out or leave on their own. This will have its repercussions in India and the Indian Muslims will have three options before them:

1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; but how many Muslims can find shelter there?

2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of Muslims will pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition are forgotten and the generation that had lived through it completes its natural term.

3. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and regional depredation decide to renounce Islam.

The prominent Muslims who are supporters of Muslim League will leave for Pakistan. The wealthy Muslims will take over the industry and business and monopolise the economy of Pakistan. But more than 30 million Muslims will be left behind in India. What promise Pakistan holds for them? The situation that will arise after the expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan will be still more dangerous for them. Pakistan itself will be afflicted by many serious problems. The greatest danger will come from international powers who will seek to control the new country, and with the passage of time this control will become tight. India will have no problem with this outside interference as it will sense danger and hostility from Pakistan.

The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnah’s attention is Bengal. He does not know that Bengal disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During World War II, Mr Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr H.S. Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only Muslim League, look at the history of Congress. The revolt of Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all. Gandhiji was not happy with the presidentship of Bose and turned the tide against him by going on a fast unto death at Rajkot. Subhas Bose rose against Gandhiji and disassociated himself from the Congress. The environment of Bengal is such that it disfavours leadership from outside and rises in revolt when it senses danger to its rights and interests.

The confidence of East Pakistan will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive. But after them any small incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it will not be possible for East Pakistan to stay with West Pakistan for any considerable period of time. There is nothing common between the two regions except that they call themselves Muslims. But the fact of being Muslim has never created durable political unity anywhere in the world. The Arab world is before us; they subscribe to a common religion, a common civilisation and culture and speak a common language. In fact they acknowledge even territorial unity. But there is no political unity among them. Their systems of government are different and they are often engaged in mutual recrimination and hostility. On the other hand, the language, customs and way of life of East Pakistan are totally different from West Pakistan. The moment the creative warmth of Pakistan cools down, the contradictions will emerge and will acquire assertive overtones. These will be fuelled by the clash of interests of international powers and consequently both wings will separate. After the separation of East Pakistan, whenever it happens, West Pakistan will become the battleground of regional contradictions and disputes. The assertion of sub-national identities of Punjab, Sind, Frontier and Balochistan will open the doors for outside interference. It will not be long before the international powers use the diverse elements of Pakistani political leadership to break the country on the lines of Balkan and Arab states. Maybe at that stage we will ask ourselves, what have we gained and what have we lost.

The real issue is economic development and progress, it certainly is not religion. Muslim business leaders have doubts about their own ability and competitive spirit. They are so used to official patronage and favours that they fear new freedom and liberty. They advocate the two-nation theory to conceal their fears and want to have a Muslim state where they have the monopoly to control the economy without any competition from competent rivals. It will be interesting to watch how long they can keep this deception alive.

I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious problems:

1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.

2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.

3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.

4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.

5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.

6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.

7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of Pakistan.

8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.

In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises.

Q: But the question is how Muslims can keep their community identity intact and how they can inculcate the attributes of the citizens of a Muslim state.

A: Hollow words cannot falsify the basic realities nor slanted questions can make the answers deficient. It amounts to distortion of the discourse. What is meant by community identity? If this community identity has remained intact during the British slavery, how will it come under threat in a free India in whose affairs Muslims will be equal participants? What attributes of the Muslim state you wish to cultivate? The real issue is the freedom of faith and worship and who can put a cap on that freedom. Will independence reduce the 90 million Muslims into such a helpless state that they will feel constrained in enjoying their religious freedom? If the British, who as a world power could not snatch this liberty, what magic or power do the Hindus have to deny this freedom of religion? These questions have been raised by those, who, under the influence of western culture, have renounced their own heritage and are now raising dust through political gimmickry.

Muslim history is an important part of Indian history. Do you think the Muslim kings were serving the cause of Islam? They had a nominal relationship with Islam; they were not Islamic preachers. Muslims of India owe their gratitude to Sufis, and many of these divines were treated by the kings very cruelly. Most of the kings created a large band of Ulema who were an obstacle in the path of the propagation of Islamic ethos and values. Islam, in its pristine form, had a tremendous appeal and in the first century won the hearts and minds of a large number of people living in and around Hejaz. But the Islam that came to India was different, the carriers were non-Arabs and the real spirit was missing. Still, the imprint of the Muslim period is writ large on the culture, music, art, architecture and languages of India. What do the cultural centres of India, like Delhi and Lucknow, represent? The underlying Muslim spirit is all too obvious.

If the Muslims still feel under threat and believe that they will be reduced to slavery in free India then I can only pray for their faith and hearts. If a man becomes disenchanted with life he can be helped to revival, but if someone is timid and lacks courage, then it is not possible to help him become brave and gutsy. The Muslims as a community have become cowards. They have no fear of God, instead they fear men. This explains why they are so obsessed with threats to their existence — a figment of their imagination.

After British takeover, the government committed all possible excesses against the Muslims. But Muslims did not cease to exist. On the contrary, they registered a growth that was more than average. The Muslim cultural ethos and values have their own charm. Then India has large Muslim neighbours on three sides. Why on earth the majority in this country will be interested to wipe out the Muslims? How will it promote their self interests? Is it so easy to finish 90 million people? In fact, Muslim culture has such attraction that I shall not be surprised if it comes to have the largest following in free India.

The world needs both, a durable peace and a philosophy of life. If the Hindus can run after Marx and undertake scholarly studies of the philosophy and wisdom of the West, they do not disdain Islam and will be happy to benefit from its principles. In fact they are more familiar with Islam and acknowledge that Islam does not mean parochialism of a hereditary community or a despotic system of governance. Islam is a universal call to establish peace on the basis of human equality. They know that Islam is the proclamation of a Messenger who calls to the worship of God and not his own worship. Islam means freedom from all social and economic discriminations and reorganisation of society on three basic principles of God-consciousness, righteous action and knowledge. In fact, it is we Muslims and our extremist behaviour that has created an aversion among non-Muslims for Islam. If we had not allowed our selfish ambitions to soil the purity of Islam then many seekers of truth would have found comfort in the bosom of Islam. Pakistan has nothing to do with Islam; it is a political demand that is projected by Muslim League as the national goal of Indian Muslims. I feel it is not the solution to the problems Muslims are facing. In fact it is bound to create more problems.

The Holy Prophet has said, “God has made the whole earth a mosque for me.” Now do not ask me to support the idea of the partition of a mosque. If the nine-crore Muslims were thinly scattered all over India, and demand was made to reorganise the states in a manner to ensure their majority in one or two regions, that was understandable. Again such a demand would not have been right from an Islamic viewpoint, but justifiable on administrative grounds. But the situation, as it exists, is drastically different. All the border states of India have Muslim majorities sharing borders with Muslim countries. Tell me, who can eliminate these populations? By demanding Pakistan we are turning our eyes away from the history of the last 1,000 years and, if I may use the League terminology, throwing more than 30 million Muslims into the lap of “Hindu Raj”. The Hindu Muslim problem that has created political tension between Congress and League will become a source of dispute between the two states and with the aid of international powers this may erupt into full scale war anytime in future.

The question is often raised that if the idea of Pakistan is so fraught with dangers for the Muslims, why is it being opposed by the Hindus? I feel that the opposition to the demand is coming from two quarters. One is represented by those who genuinely feel concerned about imperial machinations and strongly believe that a free, united India will be in a better position to defend itself. On the other hand, there is a section who opposes Pakistan with the motive to provoke Muslims to become more determined in their demand and thus get rid of them. Muslims have every right to demand constitutional safeguards, but partition of India cannot promote their interests. The demand is the politically incorrect solution of a communal problem.

In future India will be faced with class problems, not communal disputes; the conflict will be between capital and labour. The communist and socialist movements are growing and it is not possible to ignore them. These movements will increasingly fight for the protection of the interest of the underclass. The Muslim capitalists and the feudal classes are apprehensive of this impending threat. Now they have given this whole issue a communal colour and have turned the economic issue into a religious dispute. But Muslims alone are not responsible for it. This strategy was first adopted by the British government and then endorsed by the political minds of Aligarh. Later, Hindu short-sightedness made matters worse and now freedom has become contingent on the partition of India.

Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. In one Congress session Sarojini Naidu had commended him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji. He had refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that initiated communal politics in India. In 1919 he stood firmly as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the Joint Select Committee. On 3 October 1925, in a letter to the Times of India he rubbished the suggestion that Congress is a Hindu outfit. In the All Parties Conferences of 1925 and 1928, he strongly favoured a joint electorate. While speaking at the National Assembly in 1925, he said, “I am a nationalist first and a nationalist last” and exhorted his colleagues, be they Hindus or Muslims, “not to raise communal issues in the House and help make the Assembly a national institution in the truest sense of the term”.

In 1928, Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did not favour the demand to partition India. In his message to various student bodies he stressed the need to work for Hindu Muslim unity. But he felt aggrieved when the Congress formed governments in seven states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to pursue the partition demand to check Muslim political decline. In short, the demand for Pakistan is his response to his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to his opinion about me, but I have no doubts about his intelligence. As a politician he has worked overtime to fortify Muslim communalism and the demand for Pakistan. Now it has become a matter of prestige for him and he will not give it up at any cost.

Q: It is clear that Muslims are not going to turn away from their demand for Pakistan. Why have they become so impervious to all reason and logic of arguments?

A: It is difficult, rather impossible, to fight against the misplaced enthusiasm of a mob, but to suppress one’s conscience is worse than death. Today the Muslims are not walking, they are flowing. The problem is that Muslims have not learnt to walk steady; they either run or flow with the tide. When a group of people lose confidence and self-respect, they are surrounded by imaginary doubts and dangers and fail to make a distinction between the right and the wrong. The true meaning of life is realised not through numerical strength but through firm faith and righteous action. British politics has sown many seeds of fear and distrust in the mental field of Muslims. Now they are in a frightful state, bemoaning the departure of the British and demanding partition before the foreign masters leave. Do they believe that partition will avert all the dangers to their lives and bodies? If these dangers are real then they will still haunt their borders and any armed conflict will result in much greater loss of lives and possessions.

Q: But Hindus and Muslims are two different nations with different and disparate inclinations. How can the unity between the two be achieved?

A: This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the correspondence between Allama Iqbal and Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni on the subject. In the Quran the term qaum has been used not only for the community of believers but has also been used for distinct human groupings generally. What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the etymological scope of terms like millat [community], qaum [nation] and ummat [group]? In religious terms India is home to many people — the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs etc. The differences between Hindu religion and Islam are vast in scope. But these differences cannot be allowed to become an obstacle in the path of India gaining her freedom nor do the two distinct and different systems of faith negate the idea of unity of India. The issue is of our national independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is a blessing and is the right of every human being. It cannot be divided on the basis of religion.

Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal message. They are not a racial or regional grouping in whose territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in India are not one community; they are divided among many well-entrenched sects. You can unite them by arousing their anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect. Apart from Wahabi, Sunni and Shia there are innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints and divines. Small issues like raising hands during the prayer and saying Amen loudly have created disputes that defy solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [fatwas declaring someone as infidel] liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.

But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have become firm in their communalism; they prefer politics to religion and follow their worldly ambitions as commands of religion. History bears testimony to the fact that in every age we ridiculed those who pursued the good with consistency, snuffed out the brilliant examples of sacrifice and tore the flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals; even high ranking Prophets were not spared by these custodians of traditions and customs.

Q: You closed down your journal Al-Hilal a long time back. Was it due to your disappointment with the Muslims who were wallowing in intellectual desolation, or did you feel like proclaiming azan [call to prayer] in a barren desert?

A: I abandoned Al-Hilal not because I had lost faith in its truth. This journal created great awareness among a large section of Muslims. They renewed their faith in Islam, in human freedom and in consistent pursuit of righteous goals. In fact my own life was greatly enriched by this experience and I felt like those who had the privilege of learning under the companionship of the Messenger of God. My own voice entranced me and under its impact I burnt out like a phoenix. Al-Hilal had served its purpose and a new age was dawning. Based on my experiences, I made a reappraisal of the situation and decided to devote all my time and energy for the attainment of our national freedom. I was firm in my belief that freedom of Asia and Africa largely depends on India’s freedom and Hindu Muslim unity is key to India’s freedom. Even before the First World War, I had realised that India was destined to attain freedom, and no power on earth would be able to deny it. I was also clear in my mind about the role of Muslims. I ardently wished that Muslims would learn to walk together with their countrymen and not give an opportunity to history to say that when Indians were fighting for their independence, Muslims were looking on as spectators. Let nobody say that instead of fighting the waves they were standing on the banks and showing mirth on the drowning of boats carrying the freedom fighters [¼]

Posted in 1. 44 Comments »

44 Responses to “Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: The Man Who Knew The Future Of Pakistan Before Its Creation”

  1. Syed Hanif Rasool Says:

    It is indeed the writ of time that only a person of Azad’s stature could say.

  2. Save Mankind Says:

    Most of the Ummah prays five times daily, mentions Allah’s name and praise him and the Prophet many more times per day. In addition they fast annually, go on the Haj, recite the Quran, congregate on Fridays the world over, have sermons in Mosques all over the world and pray more than all communities in the world put together!!! Yet they form the most ignorant, impoverished, least educated and living in the poorest nations in the world with international terrorism and suicide bombers happening almost daily, Some of these leaders, political or monarchs are some of the most corrupt & cruel leaders on the surface of this earth. In fighting among the various sects are the most fiercest among the Ummah with one group calling the other as non believers. Hundreds of people die everyday in Pakistan, Syria, Mali, Palestine, Algeria, Sudan, Nigeria and the list is endless. Is Allah not listening to the Ummah? What is wrong, each member of the Ummah must introspect, is something wrong with the rest of the world or the Ummah itself? Search for yourself, dissect the belief system, search for the truth and do not waste this life for nobody has come back from the dead to confirm the after life.

  3. Mohammad Says:

    Pakistan has dug up its own grave ….we could have lived together as a greater India…but destiny was in the other way….

  4. Jamil Says:

    I must confess that Maulana Azad was a big visionary and rightly predicted, what’s going on in current Pakistan. I do agree that vested interest bearing groups were with Jinnah, which ultimately created Pakistan, but we should not forget that Congress leadership was equally responsible for India’s partition. If we look at India today, it is not much different from Pakistan anyway, even Hindus and Sikhs have multiple layers of sects and each one is fighting a political war:Conclusion-Human beings cannot stay in peace, a fact that our thousands years of documented history can prove. We just blame religion, sect, faith or disparity as factors. It is in human nature to be destructive and restless.

  5. Joe Marx, India Says:

    Read Maulana Azad’s book “India wins freedom”. In that too he has clearly mentioned the problems Pakistan would face as a nation and the demise of the two-nation theory.
    BTW, Bollywood actor Aamir Khan is the grand-son of Maulana Azad and he is also following in the footsteps of his illustrious grand-father by helping the poor and needy in India, irrespective of their castes or religion. This is the beauty of India. A truly, secular and democratic country. One should also not forget the contribution of Mohammad Ali and his brother Shawkat Ali for the unity of a secular India.

  6. haqfoundation Says:

    Maulana Azad was a great leader no doubt ,but he failed to convince his contemporary Muslim Leadership about the doubts they had against the communal elements in the Congress Party . Maulana also repent later to trust Nehru as Congress President. Maulana’s arrogance and his style of Leadership as well as attitude of some members of Congress Party were few factors responsible for the Partition of India and creation of Pakistan. Blaming M.A.Jinah and his Muslim League only for this historical blunder is not justified

    • Ghazanfar Says:

      It is now recognazied as historical fact that Mr. Nehru and his congress were responsible for creation of Pakistan. They stubernly refused to clarify and document the status of muslims after independence. Mohammed Ali Jinah saw no way out but to demand a separate land for muslim majority areas where all religions lived equally, though due to their majority muslims would have an ease to follow their religion; same as for Hindus in India of Nehru. These facts are detailed in the book by Mr. Yashwant Singh, the ex foreign minister of India.
      Unfortunately Jinah’ s dream for a secular state was negated by the Pakistanis who declared Pakistan as an Islamic state.

      • vijaygkg (@vijaygkg) Says:

        The partition was a good thing as it potentially allowed hindus to raise their heads without the conflict posed by islam. However nehru messed it up by promoting muslims &denigrating hindus

      • koolblue Says:

        Your perspective and you are welcome to express it! the reality is of course very different! Because history is NEVER written honestly!

  7. Muhammad Noman Akher Says:

    Moulana was hundred percent right. Two nation theory was made basis for creation of Pakistan. Can any body tell me from where the third nation came in 1971. It does not matter that it is our inability, incapacity and incompetency that we could not handle Pakistan. The thing is that a great leader had visualised all these things before 1947. I am waiting for another great leader like Moulana Azad who can tell us what to do now.

    • Asif Ali Khan Says:

      According to the two-nation theory, Hindus and Muslims could not live together. It is said that Mr Jinnah opposed the partition of Punjab and Bengal because he wanted a large number of non-Muslims to be part of Pakistan.

      If Hindus and Muslims could not live together in India, how could they live together in Punjab and Bengal?

  8. "india united" - CSS Forums Says:

    […] and Predictions About Pakistan. . .!!! Please Click the following Link to read the interview:…-its-creation/ __________________ “if you want to shine like sun first you have to burn like […]

  9. Khalid Aziz Says:

    Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a gem of a leader. Alas, we have been cut off from the teachings, thoughts and writings of such visionary leader.
    Thanks a million, for sharing this eye opening interview.

  10. Arif Butt Says:

    A solution to Pakistan’s all problems.A Reversal spell that will destroy all the voodo magic that was done 65 years ago.

    Who are we? For most of our history we have been caught between competing ideas about Pakistan. Is it a land for Muslims? What does an Islamic identity mean for the indigenous cultures of Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, Gilgit–Baltistan and the people who migrated to India?

    Greatness is created through synthesis, and when old ideas are challenged by new paradigms. The decade of the 1940s saw the North East states of British India challenged by secular Muslim nationalism. What does that mean to us? We are still in the process of understanding it. But in doing so, we have relied on too many easy answers. Our national identity is based on repudiation; we choose to identify ourselves in the negative: we are not India. Our inability to step forward is because we have failed to create any synthesis from the social and political currents available to us. Let us then challenge our paralysis and press forward with our inquiry — let us seek to imagine who we are, and who we could be.

    Our history does not start with 1947, nor with Muhammed bin Qasim’s (in)famous and glorified conquest of Sindh. Those events are important but form an incomplete story of our past. Our heritage goes back to the Indus Valley Civilization, one of the first people to build the great cities of Moenjadaro and Harappa, a complex language and mathematical system, and centers of commerce in Asia. The source of this great civilization was the Indus River whose mighty banks nourished and fed its people. Today it is not nuclear weapons that protect our country but the Indus, whose artery and tributaries provide the life flow of our country. By remembering that we are the heirs of the Indus Valley Civilization, we can shift our focus from the anti to the river itself. We can concentrate on protecting our environment and saving the river that is literally the lifeblood of the country, and the source of our food and electricity. We are a natural nation bound by the Indus, if the Indus dries out the country will collapse.

    This doesn’t mean that we completely ignore the advent of the Mughals, the conquest of the British, the height of Hindu-Muslim unity during the war of independence and its subsequent breakdown, despite the best efforts of members of the leadership class. And of course, the bloodshed in the years leading to Partition – events which concluded that religion was going to play a role, however so undefined, in the consciousness of the masses of Pakistan.

    While religion comes from the same source, it is up to different countries and peoples on how to interpret it to enrich their lives. That is why the Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia is different from the one practiced in most of Pakistan. The role of religion (in all of its cultural, spiritual, non-denominational and ritual manifestations) will remain in society. What is important is for thinkers to channel it into a force that is creative and not destructive, inclusive and pluralistic, not one that imposes its will on the unwilling. One that is large enough to include free thinkers and conservative clerics. One that encourages selfishness and a spirit of citizenship. One that convinces individuals that they have greater aims than their everyday jobs, but does not encourage utopian personalities or apocalyptic thinking.

    What is the relationship between the pre-Islamic, pre-Christian Indus Valley Civilization to today’s Islamic Republic of Pakistan? These two strands of the secular and religious deliberately create a powerful contradiction. Contradictions are good because they deny any single understanding of morality and create a vibrant society through debate and compromise.

    Embracing our Indus past will enable us to reject Arab cultural imperialism in the name of religion, and will help us discard the Two-Nation Theory. We will be focused not on fighting wars with India, but in making the greatest cities in the world. Cities like those of the past, which valued trade and commerce and became the hub of Indo-Persian-Chinese commerce. Let our market places be flooded by people from all over the world and be a blend of cultures. We will be a country that celebrates diversity; ethnic diversity of the many languages and cultures around the ecosystem of the great river, and religious diversity, for it will be a country for (all types of) Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs who can respect this ecosystem. It will be a country that empowers its minorities. And once religion is prevented from being abused we can truly reconcile it with modernity and our legacy of British constitutionalism.

    Once our conscious awakens to this idea, we will be a renewed nation. On the crumbling edifices of Moenjadaro and Harappa we will once more build great cities, and build a great country.

  11. Jahanzaib Rehmat Says:

    Yes Pakistan has some problems but each and every muslim country has this sectarian problems.
    It was the Pakistan Air force who helped Arab nations twice when Israel attacked them. It was the Pakistani Fouj who helped the Muslims of Bosnia. It was Pakistan who helped the Muslims states to get Independence from Russia. I ask this question from Hindu-Muslim unity followers that can they ask their Indian government to take such actions for the security of Muslims around the world??
    Pakistan will become an independent Islamic state soon InshAllah .. Those who talk about Pakistan, why dont they see their own India?? What they did with the SIKH community back in 1984 !! The riots in Gujaraat and Muslim massacre?? What the extremist Hindus did with the Babri mosque?? There is almost 600,000 Indian army men deployed in Disputed territory Kashmir,Is this what you call a Democracy?? One will see the emergence of Pakistan as the best Islamic state on this Planet earth soon .. InshAllah

    • Zayaan Ansari Says:

      If Pakistan was still a part of India, India would have surely helped Muslims around the world because by now a larger
      part of the Indian subcontinent would have been Muslim. And India’s Economic interests are in the Muslim World.

  12. Jibran Says:

    I can only pray to God…

    Oh Allah Soften Our hearts……….it has hardened…and its causing our own destruction.

  13. Jibran Says:

    the ‘Ummah’ has lost its ground in todays time…..

    We need to introspect our self…… This kind of Ummah can never create a new Indonesia or malaysia…Where Islam Slowly became part of life without any Big missionary work ..nor any External agression…It was the Practice of early Muslim and the new muslim which created the real Ummah
    we have words…but no Action…’Our Hearts have Hardened’

    Oh Allah!! You are the most merciful..bless us..Soften our heart…AAmeen

  14. Ejaz Khan Says:

    amazing thoughts and vision, this is great lesson for Muslims

  15. Ajay Kumar Says:

    The predictions of Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad are so canny. His predictions are almost prophetic. At that time Mohammad Ali Jinnah and others of Muslim League did not agree with Azad. Today Jinnah may be turning in his grave at the exact predictions of Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and how each of these predictions has come true. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad was not only a great nationalist but also the real well wisher of Muslims in India.
    Thanks are also due to another great Muslim leader Sh Arif Mohammad Khan who has resurrected the interview of Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and translated the same for us.

  16. Abdul Aziz Says:

    he is indian diamond.

  17. masood abbasi Says:

    i have no doubt about that Molana azad was a great man but we have only seen the disadvantages in the partition yet , there were some advantages which many people at that time couldn,t think,that pakistan appeared as a fort of islam and it became clear after the illegal birth of israel in 1948 which was being planned after the second world war, and israel appeared as a great threat for Mecca and Medina and now its clear that pakistan is the only protector of holy places of Mecca and Medina, so here lies the wisdom of quaid e azam who knew about the planning of british about the creation of a jew state ,we should also see the other side of mirror, yet the violence could be avoided by planning before the partition, indeed quaid e azam was alone to fight , and we remained divided on a crucial issue,like always,but this could be done and the leaders should act like leaders not children, they should accept the difference in opionion and work on a common plan,

    • Ghazanfar Says:

      1- It is America not Pakistan that is protector of the Mecca and Madina. The Saudi king looks towards America not Pakistan.
      2- What has Pkistan been able to do to undo Israil. In fact among all muslim states it is Iran alone that is calling to undo Israil. The other Muslim countries, including the custodians of holy places, plead with America to bomb Iran.

  18. Ali mujtaba Says:

    we love our Pakistan and the boundaries will inshallah be same as they were before 1947 but this time under muslim rule

    • gmail Says:

      It takes a historian of Ayesha Jalal‘s power to crystallize an awkward truth: that the agony of Pakistan today is inseparable from the tragedy of Pakistan’s birth in 1947. Still more bluntly, that Pakistan as we know it is not at all the country that its sainted founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, had in mind. As she puts it in conversation, “Complete partition was the last thing he wanted…”
      It is an argument that made her famous in her first book: The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan (1985). The Muslim nation that Jinnah championed was a state of mind more than a nation state. Separation from India was a bargaining ploy more than it was a demand in principle. What Jinnah wanted was a power-sharing arrangement at the all-India level, between his own Muslim League and the mostly Hindu Congress Party. He wanted equal standing, that is, in a pluralistic Union of India, but never a bordered nation, and still less an arbitrary dismemberment of the Muslims’ two great regional powerbases: the Punjab in the northwest of India and Bengal in the East. She is speaking of the history that stalks Pakistan and the wider world: Partition in the 1940s, and then the Cold War in the 1980s.

  19. anila Says:

    Well how authentic is this Article? well if it is then now there is no point of arguing on that whether we should have made pakistan or not. Now the question is how to unite all sindis, urdu speaking, punjabi pathan and balochis.
    We need to take Pakistan up high. and only all the sincere Pakistani can do that. any suggestions?

    • mohammed ali jawaid Says:

      it’s economics Madam! they all will unite if and that is a big IF, democracy prevails, however bad it is, resources are equitably shared, constitutionals norms are followed and most importantly, people get justice.

      • koolblue Says:

        It is NOT about Getting Justice! Its about respecting the Laws, first then Justice must be seen to be done; If we respect ALL the laws of the land then Justic would not be called upon to to play a part!

  20. mohammed ali jawaid Says:

    its futile to cry over spilt milk. Moulana Moudoodi was the first to oppose the idea of pakistan and Azad followed but Moudoodi migrated to the new country and Azad didn’t. it’s a wrong notion that ‘we do not learn from history’ in fact no one learn from it and everyone wants to practice new ideas. this is how the world affairs are. sensible people were screaming iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction but allied forced went ahead in attacking that country. i agree that British was to some extent responsible for instigating communal disharmony but hindus being in majority had inculcated a sense of victory over Indian muslims after last the muslim emperor was dethroned by the British which created fear for reprisals at the hands of hindus famously reflected in Sir Sayed Ahmed’s statement that ‘those who live will see (in future) the two nations (hindus and muslims) will not live together’. the latest well researched book by reputed indian politician Jaswant Singh-‘Jinnah-India-Partition-Independence’ blamed Nehru and Sardar Patel for the partition of sub-continent. as despite flowing separatists sentiments, Jinnah accepted Cabinet Mission Plan as late as Jun 1946 which denied partition. this is history too! there are conspiracy theories abound which may or may not be true or partly true but the fact is that we did not manage our country the way it should be and in the process proved its detractors right!!

    • Baha Says:

      Hindus rejoiced over deposition of Mughal emperor? Are you out of your mind? The Maratha state that was the spearhead for Hindvi Swarajya banded around the Mughal monarch as he was still the last symbolic link to indigenous rule of India in 1857. That means Hindus forgave Muslims for the thousand years of treachery and invasions and rapes and slavery and forced-conversions and temple destructions, in the name of national interest against the foreign invaders.

  21. Khurram Says:

    I want Abul Kalaam Azad’s Book AL-MURTAZA can any one give me His Softcopy Book or downloadable link? Please.

  22. Saeed Parker Says:

    For those who are looking for references, I have the Urdu book published in May 1988 from Matbooat Chattan, 88 Meklod Road, Lahore. I looked back and found the interview, translated above, under the title “Islam and Pakistan” on page number 216 and it is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact there are two more questions and answers in this chapter, which haven’t been reported.

  23. irtaza Says:

    reference pleez….the article is surely authentic in its approach…but reference would be required to have a beleif in its sourceful truth

  24. Fazal Saeed Says:

    its over … too late to be united again …. but now we have to think and try to live peacefully ….

  25. Rehan Says:

    May I please know the source of this interview? I mean I would be highly obliged if I can get this interview authenticated somehow in order to relay it in a proper professional channel. Please advise?

  26. abbas Says:

    this great scholar stayed in india as his conscience/mind suggested.he proved himself right & he protected interests of millions of indian muslims who didnot/could not go to pakistan.its a shame one mans personal abition costs moore than a million lifes and lossses more than a billion and wars for a century..maulana marhum you were right,& a half anglised stubborn muslim was wrong & blundered.
    We pray for moulana;s soul to rest in peace..ameen

  27. noman nizamani Says:

    an India had a great leader we(muslim) had a great personality, many knows that what will happened with Pakistan, Pakistan has been suffering from all those problems which he had mention in his prediction, may rest his soul in peace, ameen

  28. John Civillo Says:

    This is a wonderful study. History repeatedly says that we don’t learn anything from the history. History is a rich reservoir for the vigilant people. It is not story of the past, rather vivid observations about our future. It is footprints imprinted on the wall of the time that shows our pathfoward to the future. Pakistan, Muslim League and so called “Ulema’ again and again reminds me of rediculous historical fact that the worst form of devils always appear in the best attire of priests. Muslim League had nothing to do with Islam. It was actually against even Khilafat Movement. It was a secular organ formed by some Nawabs with covert and overt support from British imperlialists to weaken both India and Islam and to dissasociate Islam from its true polical content based on humanism and to replace it with the politics of communalism which is actually most abhorred by Islam. As I understand, Maudoodi also had pointed to the devastating impact of partition of India both on India, Muslims as a whole. I know Azad also got influenced by Maudoodi’s indepth analysis of the then contemporary Muslims in the undivided India as it was detailed in “Musalmanom our Maujoodah Siyasi Kashmakash”. Muslim League was neither a renaissance movement nor a reformation movement. It really was a wreck, havoc and catastrophe both on India and Muslim as a whole. Muslim League as an orgnization is always destined and doomed to be on the wrong side of History. It denied Indian Muslims the greatest role it had to play in India and even in the world politics. Jinnah played with the communal sentiments at the cost of millions of lives only to become Father of a country that was going to fade away from the hsitory and wither away from the comity of nations. A country or a state that came out of narrownsess of mind is destined to go down into more and deeper narrowness once it realize its each goal that reflects narrowness. That’s what we see in Pakistan. It is a mockery of Islam and It made fun of Islam and Muslims for the vested political interests of some feudalists. What it faces now in this juncture of history is just a retribution of the history. And it is part and parcel of divine justice.

  29. feroz Says:

    You done a wonderful great job man. please like us who peeps into historic facts, its worth reading.

    keep it up.

    thanks a lot.

  30. Muhammad Shahbaz Says:

    Great Work to published such a precious interivew from history.

  31. Monsur-ul-Hakim Says:

    Now, it is the time to build some common and integrated form for Muslim of the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal . . ). Not a separate country, of-course, but a knowledge driven community. If we don’t think for our betterment others will not do it for us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: